First post!

Gauda · #1 (**permalink**) 05-09-2004, 08:09 AM

Weee, first post in this forum, I see that dungeons and dragons RTS forum is also not posted in, but I will let that one be. Hmm, better find something bether to write, so that this wount be considered spam

Which warcraft did you enjoy the most? IMO WC1 was good, but offered very few tactical options, WC2 was very good! With a drawback though that you could not set control groups. WC3 was also very good, not as funny as WC2 but offered alot of tactical options.

Aegis · #2 (**permalink**) 05-09-2004, 09:04 AM

I prefered Warcraft 2 over the others. It was incredably balanced (some might say too balanced), but it made it so neither side had the distince advantage. Not only that, but it was what got me into the RTS genre.

Warcraft 3 was still incredably good, and I still show up online from time to time with my humans, but to me, it just didn't have the same feel as the second.

Ned Flanders · #3 (**permalink**) 05-10-2004, 03:06 PM

Too difficult for me to pick out which is my favorite.

I was introduced to RTS with Warcraft. Warcraft II was a phenomenal game, very balanced as Aegis said. Warcraft III was a new twist on the genre, the introduction of heroes was very cool. Not to mention the cutscene where Arthas returns home and runs his papa through with Frostmourne is just *****in'; I'd say one of the coolest things in the trilogy.

Bloodthroe · #4 (**permalink**) 05-13-2004, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned Flanders
Too difficult for me to pick out which is my favorite.

I was introduced to RTS with Warcraft. Warcraft II was a phenomenal game, very balanced as Aegis said. Warcraft III was a new twist on the genre, the introduction of heroes was very cool. Not to mention the cutscene where Arthas returns home and runs his papa through with Frostmourne is just *****in'; I'd say one of the coolest things in the trilogy.

Yeah all the games were completely different. I can't say one is better then the other. However, with warcraft 3 having the newest upgrades in gaming and the storyline being a little further evolved, it's just slightly a better game. In warcraft 2 you could upgrade knights into paladins/ in warcraft 3 the paladin was a one of a kind hero to build. In warcraft 1 the magic users could summon building destroying spells/ warcraft 3 only heros could do that. Warcraft 2 you fought by sea/ other 2 games you didn't. The list goes on and each warcraft game is different from the other. That's what makes the games unique and has people buy all three. Not like many sequels where the games are similar.

Danbacksli · #5 (**permalink**) 05-19-2004, 03:04 PM

I prefered the WC2 over all of them but I still prefer WC3 when it comes to which one I want to play.

WC2 because at the time when it came out they were awesom graphics for its time and because it allowed a brilliant aray of upgrades, colors, monsters, and things etc. It was one of the first games to do this and allow the play to overall decide the outcome(as in how to outplay them)of the battles whereas most games were basically either you win this way or you dont. Also one of the first games where it wasnt just hack and slash.

But I would also pick WC3 because it was just one of the best storylines I think and because I was just used to WC being that way so thats why I would pick it.

Bloodthroe · #6 (**permalink**) 05-27-2004, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Danbacksli
I prefered the WC2 over all of them but I still prefer WC3 when it comes to which one I want to play.

WC2 because at the time when it came out they were awesom graphics for its time and because it allowed a brilliant aray of upgrades, colors, monsters, and things etc. It was one of the first games to do this and allow the play to overall decide the outcome(as in how to outplay them)of the battles whereas most games were basically either you win this way or you dont. Also one of the first games where it wasnt just hack and slash.

But I would also pick WC3 because it was just one of the best storylines I think and because I was just used to WC being that way so thats why I would pick it.

Sorry WC (or WC2) was not one of the first games that wasn't just hack and slash. WC is considered a RTS Real-Time-Strategy (is why it's not all hack and slash). Why don't you look up some other games that are strategy like civilization, or lords of the realm.

Aegis · #7 (**permalink**) 05-27-2004, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bloodthroe
Sorry WC (or WC2) was not one of the first games that wasn't just hack and slash. WC is considered a RTS Real-Time-Strategy (is why it's not all hack and slash). Why don't you look up some other games that are strategy like civilization, or lords of the realm.

That wasn't his comment. He was making a statement regarding the majority of PC games at the time, which consisted of both First Person Shooters, and, well, First Person Shooters, with strategy being almost an underground genre.

Not to mention that PC gaming was still coming into its own at the time, Warcraft offered a beautiful alternative to the repetitive hack and slash/shooter type of games that was littering the market.

Another note, he didn't say that Warcraft was not a real-time strategy, so that is a moot point, and holds no bearing whatsoever on the argument.

And your last comment is a borderline personal attack on him, mind how you react at times.

Bloodthroe · #8 (**permalink**) 05-28-2004, 02:59 AM

That last comment was suggesting two games that came out around the time of WC2 that I thought were equally good.

Danbacksli · #9 (**permalink**) 06-05-2004, 01:34 PM

I have played both Lords of the Realm and Civilization and beaten both of them. I found them to be very interesting but boring when all you do is make people and go attack with nothing else on the side.

Nightmare · #10 (**permalink**) 06-25-2004, 06:27 PM

I think the majority of people think that WC2 was better, simply because when it was released, I can't think of another game like it. When WC3 was shipped, there were many, many startegy games out with a whole wack of different options.

Comparatively, #3 beats out #2 in all the game elements....except for the simple nostalgia factor, which makes #2 win for me.

Psi_RedEye22 · #11 (**permalink**) 07-03-2004, 03:50 AM

I picked WC3 because of a couple reasons (some very very biased)

A: Scroll rates are too high on the lower WC games on a newer PC, no matter what you set it to)

B: It actually has somewhat of a storyline, and the FMV's look amazing.

C: The strategies are limitless, though I don't like the idea of one big giant battle making it or breaking it. (This can be said for every RTS, but relying on heroes forces WC3 to be extremely linear in this respect)

D: The units say funny things when you click on them a million times.

E: The Credits are funny as hell with the endless battle going on, all to some wanna-be (but highly catchy) rock tune.

Morbent · #12 (**permalink**) 07-17-2004, 06:21 PM

First off, I never played WC1 because I was too young when it was released (and I didn't even had a computer at that time

) so I can't possibly vote for this game.

But still, I have to say I very much prefered Warcraft 3 over the 2nd, mainly because the storyline is way more inspirating and interesting than the one from WC2 IMO. As someone mentionned earlier, WC3 was superior to WC2 in all aspects, except for nosalgia, so since I'm not very nostalgic about the 2nd, I prefer Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne

Onur The Brave · #13 (**permalink**) 07-22-2004, 12:17 PM

Yupe I've only finished WCIII ''reign of chaos'' and the ''frozen throne'' expansion

and not only the game but also the cinematics were all great.I didn't like the ''faceless ones'' in frozen throne though.

dark_raven · #14 (**permalink**) 11-18-2004, 04:31 PM

well, i have to say wc3 because thats the only one i've played

Hill-Shatar · #15 (**permalink**) 08-29-2005, 08:16 PM

We need another topic in here, so dont mind please if I bring this one from the bottom of the page, Galuf.

The one that I enjoyed the most was the third one, since they all alowwed for you to build with a race for different reasons. If you like buildings with good HP, go humans. If you want a race that damages the enemy no matter what they do, go orc. You want to confuse the enemy? use nighteleves. You want to overwhelme your enemy with a simply overwhelming array of different abilities? Go undead.

Aegis said that the second was a really balanced game, and if that was so, then Id rather play Ws. and Frozen Throne.